Unskilled, underperforming, or unaware? Testing three accounts of individual differences in metacognitive monitoring

Abstract

Many studies show that competence (e.g., skill, expertise, natural ability) influences individuals' capabilities of monitoring their item-level performance. However, debate persists about how best to explain these individual differences in metacognition. The competence-based account ascribes differences in monitoring to individuals' objective ability level, arguing that the same skills necessary to perform a task are required to effectively monitor performance. The performance-based account attributes differences in monitoring to changes in overall task performance – no individual differences in competence required. Finally, the metacognitive awareness account proposes that alignment between an individuals' self-assessed and objective ability leads to differences in monitoring. In this study, 603 participants completed a self-assessment of face recognition ability, a lineup identification task, and an objective assessment of face recognition ability. We manipulated the number of encoding repetitions and delay between encoding and test to produce varying levels of task performance across objective face recognition ability. Following each lineup decision, participants provided both a numeric confidence rating and a written expression of verbal confidence. We transformed verbal confidence into a quantitative value using machine learning techniques. When matched on overall identification accuracy, objectively stronger face recognizers used numeric and verbal confidence that a) better discriminates between correct and filler lineup identifications than weaker recognizers, and b) shows better calibration to accuracy. Participants with greater self-assessed ability used higher levels of confidence, irrespective of trial accuracy. These results support the competence-based account.